Knowledge Divergence and the Value of Debate for Scalable Oversight

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05293v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2026 15:36:08 GMT
• Title: Knowledge Divergence and the Value of Debate for Scalable Oversight
• Authors: Robin Young,
• Abstract summary: Debate and reinforcement learning from AI feedback are proposed methods for scalable oversight of advanced AI systems.<n>We analyze this by parameterizing debate's value through the geometry of knowledge divergence between debating models.<n>We offer the first formal connection between debate and RLAIF, a geometric foundation for understanding when adversarial oversight protocols are justified.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: AI safety via debate and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) are both proposed methods for scalable oversight of advanced AI systems, yet no formal framework relates them or characterizes when debate offers an advantage. We analyze this by parameterizing debate's value through the geometry of knowledge divergence between debating models. Using principal angles between models' representation subspaces, we prove that the debate advantage admits an exact closed form. When models share identical training corpora, debate reduces to RLAIF-like where a single-agent method recovers the same optimum. When models possess divergent knowledge, debate advantage scales with a phase transition from quadratic regime (debate offers negligible benefit) to linear regime (debate is essential). We classify three regimes of knowledge divergence (shared, one-sided, and compositional) and provide existence results showing that debate can achieve outcomes inaccessible to either model alone, alongside a negative result showing that sufficiently strong adversarial incentives cause coordination failure in the compositional regime, with a sharp threshold separating effective from ineffective debate. We offer the first formal connection between debate and RLAIF, a geometric foundation for understanding when adversarial oversight protocols are justified, and connection to the problem of eliciting latent knowledge across models with complementary information.

Related papers

• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• Single LLM Debate, MoLaCE: Mixture of Latent Concept Experts Against Confirmation Bias [24.182306712604966]
  Large language models (LLMs) are highly vulnerable to input confirmation bias.<n>MoLaCE is a lightweight inference-time framework that addresses confirmation bias by mixing experts instantiated as different activation strengths.<n>We empirically show that it consistently reduces confirmation bias, improves robustness, and surpasses multi-agent debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T14:52:34Z)
• Latent Debate: A Surrogate Framework for Interpreting LLM Thinking [26.20998021856433]
  We introduce latent debate, a novel framework for interpreting model predictions through the lens of implicit internal arguments.<n>We show that latent debate is a faithful structured surrogate model that has highly consistent predictions with the original LLM.<n>Further analysis reveals strong correlations between hallucinations and debate patterns, such as a high degree of latent debates in the middle layers is linked to a higher risk of hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T17:27:31Z)
• ROVER: Benchmarking Reciprocal Cross-Modal Reasoning for Omnimodal Generation [79.17352367219736]
  ROVER tests the use of one modality to guide, verify, or refine outputs in the other.<n>ROVER is a human-annotated benchmark that explicitly targets reciprocal cross-modal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T02:27:46Z)
• Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate [30.66779902590191]
  Large language models (LLMs) often display sycophancy, a tendency toward excessive agreeability.<n>LLMs' inherent sycophancy can collapse debates into premature consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T02:27:13Z)
• MORABLES: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fables [50.29407048003165]
  We present MORABLES, a human-verified benchmark built from fables and short stories drawn from historical literature.<n>The main task is structured as multiple-choice questions targeting moral inference, with carefully crafted distractors that challenge models to go beyond shallow, extractive question answering.<n>Our findings show that, while larger models outperform smaller ones, they remain susceptible to adversarial manipulation and often rely on superficial patterns rather than true moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T19:06:10Z)
• Debating for Better Reasoning: An Unsupervised Multimodal Approach [56.74157117060815]
  We extend the debate paradigm to a multimodal setting, exploring its potential for weaker models to supervise and enhance the performance of stronger models.<n>We focus on visual question answering (VQA), where two "sighted" expert vision-language models debate an answer, while a "blind" (text-only) judge adjudicates based solely on the quality of the arguments.<n>In our framework, the experts defend only answers aligned with their beliefs, thereby obviating the need for explicit role-playing and concentrating the debate on instances of expert disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:18:17Z)
• Improving the Robustness of Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue via Contrastive Learning [71.8876256714229]
  We propose an entity-based contrastive learning framework for improving the robustness of knowledge-grounded dialogue systems. Our method achieves new state-of-the-art performance in terms of automatic evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T05:16:52Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Explaining Image Classification with Visual Debates [26.76139301708958]
  We propose a novel debate framework for understanding and explaining a continuous image classifier's reasoning for making a particular prediction. Our framework encourages players to put forward diverse arguments during the debates, picking up the reasoning trails missed by their opponents. We demonstrate and evaluate (a practical realization) our Visual Debates on the geometric SHAPE and MNIST datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T12:35:52Z)
• The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a No-Deal Brexit [0.0]
  We propose a five-step methodology to extract, categorize and explore the latent argumentation structures of online debates. Using Twitter data about a "no-deal" Brexit, we focus on the expected effects in case of materialisation of this event. Results show that the proposed methodology can be employed to perform a statistical rhetorics analysis of debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-09T12:29:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.